Empirical likelihood confidence intervals under imputation for missing survey data from stratified simple random sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Missing observations due to non‐response are commonly encountered in data collected from sample surveys. The focus of this article is on item non‐response which is often handled by filling in (or imputing) missing values using the observed responses (donors). Random imputation (single or fractional) is used within homogeneous imputation classes that are formed on the basis of categorical auxiliary variables observed on all the sampled units. A uniform response rate within classes is assumed, but that rate is allowed to vary across classes. We construct confidence intervals (CIs) for a population parameter that is defined as the solution to a smooth estimating equation with data collected using stratified simple random sampling. The imputation classes are assumed to be formed across strata. Fractional imputation with a fixed number of random draws is used to obtain an imputed estimating function. An empirical likelihood inference method under the fractional imputation is proposed and its asymptotic properties are derived. Two asymptotically correct bootstrap methods are developed for constructing the desired CIs. In a simulation study, the proposed bootstrap methods are shown to outperform traditional bootstrap methods and some non‐bootstrap competitors under various simulation settings. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 47: 281–301; 2019 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.388 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".